Haha, how thick your skin is! You know, for someone who puts words in my mouth you don't seem to be able to take your own medicine well.

I just want to break this down if you don't mind, if you still have the patience to hear it out;

"sources wiki"

I feel wikipedia is a pretty reliable source, I mean I could source a couple of the anatomy books that I own, or some physics books or anything else I guess, but it would be sourcing all the same right? And on a further note, just to defend myself to people who might actually be trying to stay on the subject of this thread. If you check closely not even half of my sources are from wikipedia. 2+2=4

"Admits it as an opinion, after arguing it is scientific fact"

Now that's just jumble folks. I admit that it is my opinion of how to improve the current method of organized weight divisions. The fact remains that bone matter and lean muscle matter are directly related, that is a fact my friend. I never admitted that the correlation was an opinion of mine.

And finally, I finally get to call someone a nutrider! Hope your babies aren't completely different mixtures of gray and orange! Haha this IS fun!

Do you even know what you are talking about? What words did I put in your mouth. Do you know what nutrider means?

No you don't

I guess you mean nutride integrity. I know that is a good thing.
I guess you mean nutride facts and science? I know that is a good thing.
How you decided to use nutrider, when I have said nothing about weight classes, is pretty funny.

I agree, and I feel that the measurement of bone mass would support the differences between two fighters even more so.

You say you are a tall person. So, just for example, I will imagine that your, say, 6 foot 5 inches tall. The over or underdevelopment of your muscles will not leave you trapped in a certain weight class, as itself will relate to the amount of bone mineral density in your body as well.

But back to the example, if you weighed, say 198 lbs, 80% of which was lean muscle. In a hypothetical association, let's say your in the 150-160 lb. (lean muscle) division. Theoretically, you would still be able to face an opponent who had a lean muscle and bone mass weight comparative to your own. Such as-

And so on, regardless of your opponents height. All the while still having the same overall relative strength as them. Furthermore, I imagine that the advantages between the two would even out. As the fighter with a higher percentage of lean body muscle to their overall body weight would have more endurance for activity, though a fighter with a higher overall body weight and thus higher body fat percentage would be able to use his or her body weight against the efforts of their opponent. Not much different than today, only that the "lighter" opponent has the ability to move the "heavier" fighter.

Form the guy that sources wiki, admits it is an opinion, after arguing it is scientific fact.

while I never argued that my opinion is or was scientific fact, nor that the scientific facts that I sourced were my opinion, especially all the while not once pointing out any specific example of what I said to prove your point is putting words in my mouth.

Asking me if I know what a nutrider is and then pretending to have gotten a response is putting words in my mouth.

And I meant that you were nutriding the cause of Upalumpa, another person who wants to slander what I've been working on without reading it all the way through. I don't know if you two are trying to be ironic, but talking about what I have written without

1- Giving examples of what I have wrote
2- Giving counter points to support why you think it is incorrect
3- Stating that I have no idea what I am talking about and also that my theories are based completely on fiction without even checking nor notarizing that you have checked the source pages I provided

pretty much make it seem to me as if you two are the ones who are basing your opinions on fiction.

Before I go on, I would like to point out two things. Firstly, height doesn't have that much importance in regards to body type in this scenario. For the sake of simplicity, we should probably use the words ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph. Secondly, someone at 198lb would not have 150-160lb of lean muscle as water makes up around 50-65% of your body weight.

Anyways, like I said before, the people at a recognizable disadvantage are primarily those with underdeveloped muscle or high body fat composition, and therefore not relative as far as MMA competitiveness goes. You also aren't figuring in the advantages of reach or height. ...and these measures might take an excessive amount of effort when consideration is put into the decrease of how important body type, weight, strength are when skill and technique are put into the equation.

Saying while I never argued that my opinion is or was scientific fact, nor that the scientific facts that I sourced were my opinion, especially all the while not once pointing out any specific example of what I said to prove your point is putting words in my mouth.

That was responding to your integrity comment. So, look who is twisting words now.

You are quite funny.

And I meant that you were nutriding the cause of Upalumpa, another person who wants to slander what I've been working on without reading it all the way through. I don't know if you two are trying to be ironic, but talking about what I have written without

Slander???

You are kidding right? You have no standing or reputation in this community to slander. Hell, yoru name is anonymous so, I can't hurt any research you are doing.

Slander hahaha you actually made me laugh. When you publish your thesis let me know. Then when I slander your thesis, hurt your name, and damage your reputation we can actually argue about slander.

Before I go on, I would like to point out two things. Firstly, height doesn't have that much importance in regards to body type in this scenario. For the sake of simplicity, we should probably use the words ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph. Secondly, someone at 198lb would not have 150-160lb of lean muscle as water makes up around 50-65% of your body weight.

Anyways, like I said before, the people at a recognizable disadvantage are primarily those with underdeveloped muscle or high body fat composition, and therefore not relative as far as MMA competitiveness goes. You also aren't figuring in the advantages of reach or height. ...and these measures might take an excessive amount of effort when consideration is put into the decrease of how important body type, weight, strength are when skill and technique are put into the equation.

Ok, it is probable that lean muscle makes up for nothing near 80% of ones body weight, but the example is still apliable right? I understand that water makes up a lot of body weight, but muscles are filled with blood, which is has a high content of water in it. So regardless of the specific amounts, I think we're on the same page.

Personally, I enjoy watching a match between two people of considerably different reach and height, and believe that it doesn't account for a great deal of disadvantage to the smaller fighter.

However, I don't quite understand your meaning. I mean to say, are you offering an alternative solution, information that should be included in the current theory, or saying that the current theory is flawed overall?

Do you actually understand what it is that you are posting and using as evidence?
For instance, in the Douchi et al. (2003) paper, what did they actual find? Was this at all relevant for your argument or was it a fairly trivial result?

You have on a few occasions demonstrated a lack of biological knowledge and understanding, so I'm curious about this citation in particular.

Anyway, you can cite all kinds of things you want purporting to support your position (regardless of whether or not they do), but it is all irrelevant until you provide one simple bit of information: the actual range of variation present in your population of interest.

You've provided zero information that there are appreciable differences in bone mass amongst athletes. A quick search of some of the main articles I came across using google scholar suggests that there really is not going to be substantial variation within groups of athletes for this.

Also, you clearly don't understand how to disentangle cause and correlation (neither do Douchi et al).